Voting is fine as a cultural ritual (like trick or treating on Halloween or setting off fireworks on July 4), but the outcomes of elections are merely reflections of pre-existing cultural patterns.
Elected officials are the employees of the ruling class/power elite, and their job is to implement pre-determined policies that are based on the consensus of elites regarding their own interests. The policies are worked out in think tanks and elite foundations controlled by elite donors and financiers. Anyone who gets elected president has to either do the bidding of the board of directors or be forced out. The elite has gone out of their way to undermine Trump, even though he is one of them, but just doesn’t play by the rules (like gatecrashing the primaries) and goes off script occasionally and actually tells the truth (like how the WMD claim in Iraq was a hoax). Someone who was genuinely antagonistic to elite interests would be out in heartbeat: framed, impeached, criminally charged, assassinated, whatever. Jimmy Carter seems to have been a decent guy. But who was running his foreign policy? Zbig B, who cultivated the Taliban and the Khmer Rouge as clients. Gerald Ford was probably a decent guy? But who was running his foreign policy? Henry the K, who greenlighted Surkarno’s massacre of 500,000 Timorese.
If Tulsi was elected prez either she would have to go the same way as Obama, or have the wrath of the ruling class come down on her 100 times greater than what it’s been with Trump. The same would be true of a Ron Paul-like Republican, a Jill Stein, or a Constitution Party president. I do think that electoral campaigns have a valuable propaganda function, which is why I promote Tusli now, Stein in 2016, Ron Paul in 2008/2012. In my perfect world someone like Carne Ross would be in the Democratic primaries, and someone like Marc Victor in the Republican primaries. But the goal of electoral campaigns should be to disseminate propaganda, not to “win.” The voting thing will happen on its own as ideas permeate the wider culture. A good example is the way that weed legalization and gay marriage went from being fringe ideas to being normalized. But at Antonio Gramsci, F.A. Hayek, Max Weber, Alain de Benoist, and plenty of others have pointed out, it’s winning the war of ideas that matters. The rest will happen on its own. As I once wrote elsewhere:
“The standard pattern in the history of the advancement of radical movements is that a new revolutionary outlook first captures the imagination of the intellectual elite, who become dissenters, and this new outlook then advances into the ranks of those who are most likely to opt for radicalism, or who have the least to lose by doing so. So, in turn, the intellectual dissidents are joined by student radicals and rebellious youth, bohemians and counterculturalists, members of the lumpenproletariat and the underclass, and marginalized or outcast social groups. Eventually, radical ideas begin working their way into the ranks of the conventional proletariat, and then into the middle class, and, finally, the establishment, with social reactionaries reluctantly being dragged along.”
The Amish have a pretty cool take on voting: “The Amish don’t vote in national elections. They vote in local elections. They do so because they have decided long ago that to vote for anyone on the national stage is to vote for a corrupt, lying, scheming Son of Satan. They won’t do it. Instead they argue that on the local level their vote just might make a bit of difference.” I generally agree with this although I think it’s a bit defamatory to Satan to compare him to the political class. https://www.patheos.com/…/disturbed-by-the-presidential…